In the past, constitutional interpretation involved actually interpreting the text. constitution.
It's not a blank slate. That word has a real meaning. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has acknowledged that the Constitution contains language, but its judges have held that whatever meanings those language may have, no matter how outlandish they may be. He also seems to think that it can be interpreted.
Lead plaintiff Martin ruled that the government may not punish him. homeless Individuals sleeping on public property if there are no free beds available in non-religious facilities. (Actually, the decision will go further, but let's think about it slowly.)
Now, this ruling may surprise most people. Because governments own public lands for the public good, and private entities have the same right to decide who can sleep (or camp, or rest, or two) on public lands. Because it is. You must protect your own property. plus, Neither homeless Constitutional protection clauses and right to sleep on public property clauses.
To be fair, the Ninth Circuit did point to the constitutional passage–Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – the Court thought the sentence was justified. This article prohibits the imposition of “cruel and unusual punishment.” (Yes, we had the same puzzled look you're doing right now, but keep reading.) It says nothing about whether the government can criminalize certain acts. yeah.
However, the Ninth Circuit incorrectly held that: supreme courtdecision Robinson vs. California and Powell vs. Texas The court held that the act must be voluntary for the state to criminalize it, and that sleeping is involuntary. Therefore, the law in question must be enacted.
But legal interpretation is different from a Creative Writing 101 or Cubism class. There are limits to how far the Supreme Court's words can be stretched before readers distort their meaning.
Mr. Robinson argued that states could not criminalize drug addiction (as opposed to drug possession or distribution), but Mr. Powell argued that states could define public intoxication as a crime. insisted. The latter decision, written by Justice Thurgood Marshall (who was by no means an “extreme MAGA” Republican), clearly distinguished between drinking in public and drinking at home, making the former subject to criminal penalties. This is especially important because it is appropriate.
While this decision would have quickly resolved the case, it would not have yielded the outcome the Ninth Circuit had hoped for. Therefore, a little improvement was necessary.
In the second Grants Pass case, the Ninth Circuit went further, holding that criminal and civil penalties cannot be used to enforce the city's anti-camping laws.
And just recently, Coalition on HomelessnessJudge Patrick Bumatai dissented from the decision, stating that the Ninth Circuit “stays an injunction that would allow homeless people to sleep in public areas of the City of San Francisco anytime and anywhere unless adequate shelter is provided.” Ta.
He went on to say that this “represents a further expansion” of the Ninth Circuit's “cruel and unusual Eighth Amendment jurisprudence.” But in reality, he explained, the decision itself is “cruel in that it leaves San Franciscans powerless to enforce their own health and safety laws without the permission of a federal judge.” He said the ruling was “unusual because no other court in the country has interpreted the Constitution in this way.”
After all, the state's decision to ban sleeping on public property is not an unreasonable or despicable attack on the homeless. Homeless encampments took over the streets of San Francisco and elsewhere. Los AngelesSeattle deprives its citizens of the opportunity to use those areas safely.
moreover, Sam QuinonesA journalist who has been documenting America's ongoing drug crisis says:[t]Many encampments are simply meth colonies, although other drugs and alcohol are also involved. ”
Homeless camps are rife with open drug sales and use, prostitution, and the threat of violence (including violence against the homeless in the camps), where the strong prey on the weak. There is.
Fortunately, of The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to hear the Grants Pass case, in which the Ninth Circuit made bizarre use of the Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishment clause, which prohibits cities from defending their own residents or property. I have a chance to undo the damage caused by what I did.
Whatever one may say about the policy choices reflected in the Ninth Circuit's decisions, those decisions make little pretense of finding a home in the Constitution. These are results-oriented jurisprudence at worst, and even intellectually dishonest judges can write grammatically correct sentences and sprinkle in a few quotes to and from Supreme Court decisions. It is proof that you can reach any result you desire.
The Supreme Court should reverse the Ninth Circuit's decision in Grants Pass, allowing public officials to address homelessness and public safety issues, and ordering judges responsible for their atrocities to be publicly spanked (at least figuratively). This is certainly an appropriate punishment that most honest observers would consider neither cruel nor unusual.
I take action
As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear is back with Take Action recommendations and information.